Fr Martin Sirju

Even though the Year of the Eucharist is concluded, we can continue to reflect on the Eucharist in the life and mission of the Church, especially since the Synod of Bishops in Rome also had the Eucharist as its theme.

In our own archdiocese many developments took place, some of which Archbishop Gilbert mentioned in the Catholic News of Sunday, October 9. These events left many Catholics more informed about their faith, renewed their Catholic identity and spurred some of them on to mission.

The experience of the Symposium on the Eucharist, at the University of the West Indies , St Augustine , in particular, left an indelible impression on the laity who gathered there for the event.

After a year of such good news I am sure that we are more than ready to wrestle with some of the dark shadows regarding Eucharistic ministry. I have in mind here not the abuses mentioned by the late John Paul II in his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia , but some of the concerns arising from Eucharistic practice in this archdiocese.

My first concern is the distortion in Eucharistic language and meaning. Some years ago Msgr Urban Peschier asked about Holy Communion at liturgical (thanksgiving/memorial) services in homes.

He felt the origin of the Eucharistic service was tied to the Sunday—the day of the Lord. Lay ministers were permitted to hold Eucharistic services for the Church community in the absence of a priest.

He questioned whether the practice should be extended to the home at all. Some Fathers present felt that with the decline in the number of priests in the archdiocese as well as vocations to the priesthood, not to mention the “graying” of the clergy, the practice was permissible.

The net effect of all this is the frequent distribution of communion outside its proper context – the Mass. Not only is this a liturgical anomaly, but the meaning of the Mass has now become a source of confusion among many of the faithful. People refer to “Sister so-and-so Mass” or “Brother so-and-so Mass”.

Under the influence of “lay presidency” people also say that “Reverend so-and-so (meaning a Pentecostal minister) did the Mass” at their friend's home.

The proliferation of Eucharistic services, though well-intentioned and necessary in the post-Vatican II Church, has had the unfortunate effect of casting a shadow on Eucharistic practice and meaning. The prevalence of Eucharistic services has seen many people scuttling from one parish to another in an attempt to “get Mass”.

Some pastors have condemned this saying it is fragmenting the Christian community, and to some extent it is.

A colleague of mine in ministry suggested that to avert this we emphasise “worship” and not so much Eucharist when it comes to Sunday (Saturday) worship i.e. Sunday is the day of the Lord when the community gathers for worship of which the Eucharist is the primary expression, but not the only one; sometimes we have to settle for other forms of worship.

I do not agree with this reduced emphasis on Eucharist for Sundays. The day of the Lord in the Catholic tradition is historically Eucharistic; it became the day of the Lord because the Eucharist was celebrated on that day. To make it more Word-centred would be to introduce a foreign thought in our Eucharistic tradition.

The Eucharist is both Word and Sacrament and John Paul II devoted an apostolic letter, Dies Domini , to underscore this point. If we have taught people from childhood that the Eucharist is “the centre and summit of the Church's life and mission”, or as is often said, “the most priceless form of worship we can give”, is it any wonder that they scuttle from parish to parish, especially in the city, to ensure they have Mass? (As usual, parishioners in rural areas must settle for what they get.)

This is not being unfaithful to the community; it is being faithful to the deepest instincts of their Catholic identity. If we want to convince them that they should stay in their communities to worship on Sunday (Saturday) we may very well succeed, but at the expense of a specific understanding of the special place of the Eucharist in the life of the faithful. And it is happening already.

I say this not with any indifference to the inestimable sacrifice of many lay ministers in keeping their communities alive and active, but it is wrong to give people the impression that the Eucharistic service and the Mass are on the same level.

I think the problem will be worsened if the permanent diaconate (married deacons) is introduced in the archdiocese. While there are many married lay ministers who have proven themselves in ministry, with a fervent and fruitful prayer life, their admission to the permanent diaconate would only make this eucharistic anomaly worse.

Apart from excluding women who are more in number and who have worked just as hard in the vineyard, the introduction of permanent deacons will give rise to similar remarks as mentioned above, “Reverend so-and-so did a nice Mass, yuh doh fine?” It would contribute further to the obfuscation of the meaning of Mass.

The irony is that married deacons would indeed be beneficial in all parishes, especially large ones where baptisms, weddings and funerals are numerous. But we need to ask ourselves, would we be considering this measure if there are a sufficient number of priests, and is it the best way to remedy the shortage in clerical manpower?

At the recently concluded Synod of Bishops held in Rome last month, one of the hotly contested questions was whether people had a right to the Eucharist. Cardinal Angelo Scola, Patriarch of Venice and “relator general” for the Synod, remarked: “The Eucharist is a gift, not a right or a possession.”

I think the Cardinal was right and perhaps wrong too.

He was right in that the Eucharist is God's gift to the Church and through the Church to us the faithful. We cannot force God's hand in a matter that is total grace and gratuitousness.

On the other hand, the canons of the Church do use the language of rights regarding the sacraments. Canon 213 says: “Christ's faithful have the right to be assisted by their Pastors from the spiritual riches of the Church, especially by the word of God and the sacraments.”

Additionally, Canon 843 says: “Sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.”

These two canons lend quite some justification to the language of rights regarding the Eucharist.

Ultimately the question is: does the Church have options open to her that will enable her to feed her hungry flock? The answer to that question is “yes”. Whether the Church will use those options is another matter.

What is at stake, however, is nothing short of the authentic understanding of the Eucharist in the minds of the faithful and the ongoing fidelity of the Church to the words of Jesus to the Apostle Peter: “ Feed my sheep ” (Jn 21:17).